• At Lincoln House Blog
  • Pressroom / Information Center
  • Calendar
  • Register
  • Login
  • Shopping Cart
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
  • Quick Links
    • At Lincoln House Blog
    • Find an Expert
    • Latest Policy Focus Report
    • Online Education
    • Lectures & Videos
    • Resources & Tools
  • Departments & Programs
    • Planning and Urban Form
    • Valuation and Taxation
    • International Studies
    • China Program
    • Latin America Program

Español | 中文

  • About
  • News & Events
  • Education & Research
  • Publications & Multimedia
    • 2012-2013 Program
    • Publications Catalog
    • Making Sense of Place Film Series
    • Shifting Ground Radio Series
    • Search Publications and Multimedia
  • Resources & Tools

Search All Publications and Multimedia

> More search options





Publication Dates
FROM:

TO:


> Fewer search options

Mechanisms for Cities to Manage Institutionally Led Real Estate Development (Working Paper)

Author(s): Jill S. Taylor
Publication Date: April 2007

68 pages; Inventory ID WP07JT1; English

availability free downloadsFREE DOWNLOADS BELOW
Mechanisms for Cities to Manage Institutionally Led Real Estate Development PDF 3.19 MB

Abstract

This paper addresses the role of cities in managing institutionally led real estate development. Specifically, it identifies mechanisms available to cities to influence the development activities of large institutions and guide interactions between institutions and communities. The paper is based upon case studies of three cities: Portland, Oregon; Tucson, Arizona; and Cleveland, Ohio.

The paper presents a framework in which the level of influence a city holds over institutional development is a function of both the existence and strength of regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms. With strong regulatory mechanisms supplemented by non-regulatory mechanisms, Portland seems to exhibit the greatest level of influence over institutional development among the three cities. Although Tucson has strong non-regulatory tools, the city’s influence is limited by the lack of regulatory controls. Cleveland has some influence over institutional development, but it is diminished by the limited ability to enforce regulatory mechanisms and the lack of non-regulatory controls to compensate.
© 2013 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 113 Brattle Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-3400 USA Home Contact Help Privacy